"Progressive" is just a friendly name for COMMUNIST!

Also it isn't just a US phenomena, the same thing seems to be occurring globally.

reply to post by 222938


I replied to your statement and showed you that is not what caused Rome's fall and what you see as moral deviancy doesn't cause an empire to collapse, it's corruption, nepotism, and resources spread too thinly.

Are you unaware that Rome was pagan through and through from it's inception? In fact it's move from paganism to Christianity is one of the factors of its downfall, thus why your statement is completely uneducated - and I stand by that.

I never said you were stupid, I said you were uneducated. Ignorant might be more fitting. I suggest you do a little research on the subject.

yet she did nothing but talk about how apparently stupid I am and proved none of my statements wrong. It's typical far-left tactics and you know it. Deflect, deflect, deflect.

You make the claims, you back them up. It's not my job to prove to you that transexuals don't destroy American culture. It's not my job to prove to you that minorities don't want to live in 3rd world ghettos. It's not my job to prove to you that medicare and social security aren't tearing apart the fabric of American society.

Making sweeping and inaccurate generalizations and racist inferences without backing up your talk and then claiming I'm deflecting for not addressing each and every point of yours is called hypocritical.

Do you know what else is hypocritical? Saying I'm employing typical leftist tactics to deflect and criticize you, and then you calling me:

Leftist
Professor
Educated by Dr. Phil and Oprah
Ultra elite
Educated Superior
Miss - even though you don't know my gender
She - even though you don't know my gender

And I did address one of the many points of your inaccurate post. See below:

And it thrived while their population indulged in orgies, sacrificed cows to pagan gods, and experimented with same sex relationships. Rome fell because it spread itself too thin, treated their conquered territories poorly, allowed nepotism and dictators control the empire, and let Christianity take hold in society.

So yes, when you make broad, sweeping generalizations combined with thinly veiled racist, bigoted, and sexist remarks, I'm sorry if I call you uneducated, because you are clearly giving off that vibe.

Originally posted by rationaluser
I honestly don't know why people respond to these TROLL threads it is humanities INTEREST to be "progressive" if it wasn't for progressives like benjimen franklin and george washington who would have freed the slaves granted benjimen Did have a slave of his own but thats beside the point. 300 years ago anyone trying to free the slaves would have been hung drawn and quartered.

However nowadays pritty much anyone trying to own a slave would be looked down upon by society and ridiculed as "lazy" or incompetant not to mention possibly labled as a racist depending on the color of the slave.

As stated in dawkins book The God Dellusion the further you go back in history the more people were racist, intolerant, ignorant or just didn't care about other colors and likely the more years that pass SINCE dawkins wrote his book the more accepting we will become (yes i'm talking to you steriotypical version of the deep south

)

so let me know what you think you dirty commies

j/k you guys are ok

And this sort of logic is how the Communists get you. By calling yourself 'progressive' the connotation is that of moving forward. Making progress. So the Communists hide themselves in a term making people think that their beliefs are moving forward, when in actuality its moving backward to a very evil, awful place.

Originally posted by HotSauce

Just think you probably wouldn't vote for someone who told you upfront they were a Communist, but if they lie to you and tell you they are for "Progress" then it doesn't seem so bad to vote for them.

I would truly like to see someone find me a candidate that would say "No I am not for progress"

Originally posted by Angus123
I've seen people's comments get censored here for political trolling, bad decorum and other offenses, but this guy starts a thread with the premise that progressives are "filthy, lying communists", launches into a half thought out screed that's more opinion than fact and that's totally kosher? Really...?

Is it not about the ultimate hypocracy that in your original post you can say anything you want but replies must be censured?

ATS really needs to get a handle on this. Either let all parties swing freely or call out some of these threads for what they are right from the begining with the OP-Political trolling.

Capitalism has moved itself into a position where it has shot itself in the foot. They've brought us an increasingly globalized world, where date be transmitted around the globe in seconds. Fortunes are made in the blink of an eye while others disappear just as quickly. The internet interconnects us on levels as deeply as economics. Capitalism has brought globalization where the question of an individual countries sovereignty comes into play.

Socialism, true socialism, places an emphasis on there being no, or very little, state or government. A system run by the people. Sovereignty is not necessary because sovereignty requires people to bow to the whim of the ruling party, and yet globalized capitalism has brought us to the point where this is not required.

Capitalism relies on the oppression of the poor; not just the poor of America and Europe but those in third world countries. In today's age, we're a mouse click away from seeing the true suffering this has brought. For a mouse click and a view dollars we could fly on an airplane and see it first hand, possibly within hours. News spreads like a wildfire all around the globe. We know stories before they debut on the television screen.

Capitalism brought itself to the point where it is too large, too bloated, tittering on the edge of collapse. It's there for everyone to see, and everybody can watch as 'socialist' practices are utilized to help the rich, while the poor have to wallow in the rat race of free markets.

Capitalism has brought itself the point where it is clear for all to see that it's a dysfunctional system, built to keep down 'lesser' peoples and 'lesser' countries. In it's own process of rampant globalization, it has brought itself right to it's inevitable end. It will just be a matter of time.

"Progressive" is just a friendly name for COMMUNIST!

And "Uninformed is just a friendly name for stupid.



What an extremely uninformed thread this is.





[edit on 3-12-2009 by Rhetoric]

You know, the idea of Communism isn't bad.

It just never works out as it's always abused by dictators.

[edit on 3-12-2009 by GorehoundLarry]

22 flags for this flag stereotyping every progressive in existence? Progressives don't even have to be a democrat, they are people who want to reform the system, or parts of the system.

Just because they are mostly democrats, and you hate the democratic belief, doesn't mean they are communists.

Generally progressives are SOCIALISTS. (Again, not all progressives are democrats, or even left wing)

editing in preface to this post:

when I wrote it I was confusing ElectricUniverse (who replied to my first post) and HotSauce (the opening poster). As I understood it, HotSauce was conflating Individualism with Democracy/Republicanism and setting up Communism/Socialism as the enemy of the individual. I'm going to leave this post as I wrote it, but I have since gone back to the beginning of the thread.

The only thing I guess I would add to ElectricUniverse is to point out that the assumption that democracy is individualistic was not mine but the OP's, and that my post was actually trying to make the point that this is not true

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by americandingbat

 

Individualism is NOT Democratic...that alone shows you don't understand these concepts.

My mistake ... I assumed that in your defense of individualism you were arguing that it is better protected under a Democracy or Republic (for example, the basic form of government that we have in the U.S.) than under a communist/socialist political system.

If you are in fact an anarchist then your defense of individualism at all costs makes more sense.

But perhaps this misunderstanding demonstrates how absurd it is to base political arguments on labels.

In a Democracy the individual does not matter, but the mayority matters...or in other words the collective matters in a Democracy...

Even Thomas Jefferson himself said it... He was concerned by a tyranny of the mayority,

I think this response was basically driven by my misunderstanding your posts and believing that you were defending democratic/republican type governments as being based on individualism. You and I are in basic agreement here, although I do think that democracy (at least as practiced in the U.S.) tends to create a cult of individualism that is detrimental to both personal growth and to the well-being and security of the populace in general. I'm not saying that the answer to this would be communism, mind you; I'm just saying that the ideology of rugged individualism pervasive in the U.S. is just that ... an ideology.

For the people in the UK, and for other Europeans Winston Churcill himself said..

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill

www.saidwhat.co.uk...

I've added the bolding. He was making a basic point: all governmental systems devised so far are imperfect at best. He believed democracy to be the least bad of many not-so-great options.

Of course Socialism/Communism are worse, but through "Democracy" a Socialist/Communist form of government can be implemented...

If by Socialist/Communist you mean any government in which control of the means of production of a nation is in the hands of the few (not something most socialists would agree with btw) then a "Socialist/Communist" government can be implemented through virtually any form of government ...

It all goes back to the labels. You have chosen to accept the self-definition of a few totalitarian "communists" as the true definition of Communism. You do so despite recognizing explicitly how labels can be used (by for instance the German Democratic Republic, as the former East Germany was more formally named) by those in power to obscure their true nature.

It is your choice to consider any form of resource centralization as Socialist/Communist (and interesting that you seem to be willing to completely group those two together, but I'll bet you're going to bring up the difference between a democracy and a republic). Most people who believe that socialism or communism would be a better form of government would not accept that definition at all. They would presumably require that resources, rather than simply being centralized, be controlled by the workers. As far as I know, this fundamental principle of socialism has never been implemented on a large scale.

[edit on 12/3/2009 by americandingbat]

reply to post by HotSauce


we eventually need to develop a world economic system that is the most efficient for all levels of aptitude to glean the most efficiency from ourselves.

this will no doubt include the pairing of moderated capitalism for incentive and balanced socialism/communism for protection from scarcity.

the more you broadly stroke any specific economic model with demonism the more you negate fuller understanding of the overall encompassing importance of it's worthy aspects.

freaking out and calling specific groups of thought nasty names is in my opinion ignorant and backwards.

i recommend you drop your guard and preconditioned wiring for a moment in order to fully conceptualize the ideal form of collective prosperity thank you very much.

-

So, wait, you're saying that Rush is a Canadian Communist Rock band??


Sawry.

To the OP I think it's sad that you and so many others are trapped and so invested in the left/right game and can't see the forest from the trees.You guys can complain and whine about just who is to blame for the situation we find ourselves in the entire game is rigged they just use the trappings of being conservative or liberal when in the end it's all about wooing enough lobbyists to foot the bill.

Well well well

I must say I am amazed, as I go through all the replies, at how many of you are pro communism. Looks like your Liberal teachers and professors really earned their pay for indoctrinating you. I give you my condolences, your parents should have never let this happen to you.

One common theme I seem to hear from the Progressive/Marxist/Communists in this thread is that you feel like you are poor or sinking to poverty and this is a way to avoid it. What you fail to see is that in a Communist state the masses are just equally poor and the only people who are rich are the ruling class.

On the other hand. In a capitalist state if you are smart, talented, and/or work very hard anyone from any background can rise from poverty.

reply to post by Someone336


It is ironic that you would make an effort to qualify socialism as "true socialism", attempting to make clear that much of the so called socialism today is not truly socialism, but before doing so willingly place upon capitalism the symptoms of corporatism. Corporatism is not capitalism and the very nature of the corporate structure is undeniably anti-capitalistic.

Capitalism...true capitalism...is a system dependent upon basic premises. There are three major tenets to capitalism that are the bane of the corporate structure. The first tenet is a free and unregulated market place. Corporatism does not abide by this principle and spends billions of dollars every year lobbying politicians in an effort to ensure some form of regulation.

The licensing schemes that demand a shoe maker or book seller obtain a license in order to make shoes or sell books is a product of corporate lobbying. Why would a book seller need a license to do so? What possible harm comes from selling books? It is not at all the harm that book selling causes that is the motive behind this business licensing scheme, the motive is to make more difficult and to also ensure that book seller own up to a tax liability that this licensing scheme is put in place. It is not, however, a component of a free and unregulated market.

There has been an ongoing battle in recent years between the pharmaceutical companies and the mom and pop vitamin manufacturers. The large corporate pharmaceutical companies do not welcome the competition these mom and pop vitamin manufacturers bring and so they spend vast amount of money lobbying Congress to regulate the vitamin industry. If they ultimately achieve their goal of requiring that all vitamins be regulated by the FDA, this will effectively put those mom and pop vitamin manufacturers out of business.

The second primary tenet to capitalism is massive competition. The point of this is that business will, for various reasons, fail. When there is massive competition when a business fails it is less likely to be felt by the economy as a whole than when it is as it is in the current market place where corporations are deemed "too big to fail" and thus requiring massive tax dollars to bail them out. This bail out only encourages those corporations "too big to fail" to continue making the same bad business decisions they made that led to their failure to begin with. Bad business is bad business and if a company fails because of bad business practices it fails deservedly.

The third primary tenet to capitalism is a currency consisting of real wealth that everyone agrees upon the value of that currency. Much of the world's economy currently uses fiat money that is not backed by real wealth but is instead backed by consumer confidence.

None of these primary tenets exist in the world economy today and yet too many people will look at that economy, a corporate economy, or what John Kenneth Gailbraith has termed; oligopolism, and call it capitalism. It is not capitalism and never has been nor will it ever be.

The assertion that capitalism relies upon the oppression of the poor is empty rhetoric. Capitalism relies upon the exact opposite and thrives when more people than not have acquired wealth. It is often criticized for its seeming pyramid like structure where the owner of a company is at the top of the pyramid while the lower levels consist of management and labor. The criticism of this, however, misses or blatantly ignores the fact that at any time a laborer or manager can break away from this pyramid and begin their own pyramid. That is, under "true capitalism".

Under the current system today it is increasingly difficult to break away from the pyramid one may find themselves working under on lower levels, mostly because of the oppressive and intrusive licensing schemes implemented by local, state and federal governments. Peddling has been outlawed in certain cities and in others has been so ridiculously regulated that it is hardly worth the effort for any individual to break out on their own and start up a hot dog stand or shoe polishing stand or selling jewelry or whatever form of small business that person would care to engage in. The argument for licensing peddlers or just flat out prohibiting them is that it is unfair to those businesses that have purchased or leased property and been licensed themselves, but this argument is not a capitalist argument it is a governmental argument justifying licensing schemes and favoring real estate owners over those reliant upon public squares or sidewalks.

Capitalism offers the ultimate freedom in economy allowing all people to excel or not at their own pace and based on their own desires. Given that it is a system reliant upon massive competition in a free and unregulated market and reliant upon a currency backed by wealth whereby all parties agree upon the exact value of the wealth, it is baffling why so many people today believe the current market system is a capitalist one.

Progressive is to Communist like Socialist is to Nazi.

Any ignoramus can draw irrational conclusions from most pairs of labels.

Communism has never worked for reasons stated in prior posts. I agree completely, human nature is such that if anyone is in a position to insulate themselves from consequences, chances are they will be corrupted by that very fact.

Republics and Democracies suffer the same ills.

What we have to contend with is really 2 or 3 points of view scattered behind the propaganda of several power based ideologies that use lies, fear, and performance art to get followers.

Either you believe in the common good or you don't. It's really that simple.
Either you believe it's a free for all and anything goes or you don't.

It's a fact that some people are going to be more productive than others, some smarter than others, some more capable than others. So the choice is really simple.

Either we embrace diversity in all things or we subscribe to labeling things according to how we personally feel about them regardless of how uninformed we are about the factual truth about the label we attach and then revile.

We are a broken culture fed by extreme ideologues bent on employing any means they can to get supporters for the label they usurp, and turn those lemmings into prosecutors of the label they bestow on those that disagree with their ideology.

This is how Republicans and Conservatives wound up being identified as war mongers and racists.

It's also how Democrats have been identified as Socialists/Communists etc..

We can sit here and blow smoke up each others butts all we want and it won't solve anything, it won't start a movement, or a revolution. It's just a circle jerk.

Capitalism can be equated with slavery in a minute. But that does not make it true, it's just creative brain food for those in the majority that either do not have the mental capacity to think through things, or are brainwashed to blame everything on the members of the label they have been convinced represents their opposition.

History has shown us that any system can be gamed and anything can be done in the name of "something".

The Spanish Inquisition
The persecution of Jews
The Crusades
The Third Reich
Slavery
Stalin
Franco
Peron
Viet Nam
Cuba
Venezuela
USA

In our case, that being the USA we have decided to call ourselves a Republic. We say we are a Democracy. We have a Constitution and a Declaration of Independence. Sounds impressive but it only works if you really live by your charter.
We don't live by our charter, we live by our ability to create wealth.
We are inconsistent in how we apply power and the rule of law.

Examples:

If you invent something, we are given a patent. Presumably that gives you roughly 20 years to leverage your "innovation" and then others can leverage it without paying you. Fair or not that is what we have agreed to.

If I start a business all bets are off unless someone can prove my business is a monopoly. By the time my business is a monopoly it's almost impossible for it to be declared a monopoly.

Under our current system we have nothing that can stop a given person from becoming the ruler of the entire planet, or a given ideology from being forcibly imposed upon everyone. This is because we have a system that is based on superior power being the deciding factor in all things.

When we disagree we kill each other. That is the bottom line.
We need change, we need to move forward as thinking beings. We need to progress not stagnate or regress.

It's a easy to say

Democrats = Progress
Republicans = Stagnate
Conservatives = Regress

We know these labels don't represent every individual in those groups so why do we punish them for being something they are not?
We live by flawed rules and ignorant concepts.

Angry people get on the web and put on their extreme self suit to go fight against their enemies.

We are cowards that prefer to kill than coexist.

No change = extinction

All else is Bull Crap.

Peace

[edit on 3-12-2009 by ziggystrange]

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


I never stated that I was unbiased. To deny one's bias is to invalidate oneself from actively playing a role in a debate other any further than being a perpetual devil's advocate. So, in the name of my bias, which I acknowledge is left wing, yes, I equated capitalism with corporatism. I state this because in my opinion, corporatism is the natural evolution of capitalism. Capitalism has led us, much like how many attempts for socialism or communism has led to failed dystopias, to an economic landscape dominated with mountainous corporations who manipulate all sides of the playing field, be they left, right, rich, poor, Christian, Muslim, American, European or whatever.

Globalization is called globalized capitalism, mainly because in reality what it is is globalized corporatism, and corporatism is such an ugly word. Almost as ugly as 'totalitarian', the face behind many 'socialist' masks.

I could be wrong. I acknowledge that. But I, in my heart, believe the philosophy that I espouse is in the right. I see it as an answer to a system built only a greed, a system that leads to non-apparent slavery, which is slavery none-the-less.

I guess what I really speak out against is plutarchy.

reply to post by Someone336


I never accused you of being biased nor was it my intention to take you to task for any bias. I just felt compelled to speak to the irony of qualifying "true socialism" while ignoring the tenets of "true capitalism". Your bias is yours and you are welcome to it, just as I clearly embrace my own. I do, however, appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that corporatism is not capitalism and to take it even further and explain the corporatism has hijacked the term capitalism as a political spin because, as you have correctly pointed out, corporatism is not a pretty word.

As much as I admire and believe in the tenets of "true capitalism", intellectual honesty demands that I admit that by insisting that "true capitalism" be acknowledged for what it is, only illustrates the inability of that economic system to successfully take root. Just as "true socialism" or "true communism" have failed to take root, so has "true capitalism" and all of them remain theories that have never truly had the luxury of testing, which I suppose would relegate them to hypothesis instead of theories.

I encourage your bias and in no way meant to castigate you personally, I only felt compelled to clarify the true tenets of capitalism.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I never accused you of being biased nor was it my intention to take you to task for any bias. I just felt compelled to speak to the irony of qualifying "true socialism" while ignoring the tenets of "true capitalism".

I know, I just wanted to clarify why I fell victim that irony. No hard feelings .

Perhaps I should also clarify things further: my opinion of what 'true socialism' is may differ from others. I believe in socialism in one of it's most basic forms: the worker cooperative system, much like the India Coffee House, Kantega, etc. I believe in small government, lax in regulations and allowing the populace the populace to function at a high level of freedom. I take it a step further, and hope that someday we can move past the need for the state and for the nation.

Reality is the crushing blow though, atleast for now. Both our utopian philosophies fall victim to that same monster: greed.

reply to post by Someone336


Yes indeed! It is like the old joke goes: Want to know the difference between capitalism and socialism? In capitalism man exploits man and in socialism it is the other way around.